May
17, 2005

Minutes

The
Andover City Planning Commission met for a regular meeting on Tuesday, May 17,
2005 at 909 N. Andover Road in the Andover Civic Center. Chairman Clark
Nelson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Commission Members present
were Lynn Heath, Jan Cox, Ron Roberts, Quentin Coon, and Charlotte Bass.
Others in attendance were Zoning Administrator Les Mangus, Administrative
Secretary Deborah Carroll, and City Clerk/Administrator Jeff Bridges and City Council Liaison Caroline Hale. Commission Member David Martine and Jeff
Syrios were absent.

Call to Order

Review
the minutes of the April 19, 2005 Planning Commission meeting.

Charlotte
Bass made a motion to approve the minutes as presented. Lynn Heath seconded
the motion. Motion carried 6/0.

Review the minutes of the Apr.
19, 2005 Planning Commission meeting.

Communications:

Review the City Council minutes from the April 12,
2005 and April 26, 2005 meetings. The minutes were received and filed.

Review the minutes of the May 3, 2005 Site Plan
Review Committee Meeting. The minutes were received and filed.

Review the minutes of the May 10, 2005 Subdivision
Committee meeting. The minutes were received and filed.

Review the Potential Residential Development Lot Report.

Communications:

Election of Planning Commission Officers.

Lynn Heath made a motion to nominate Clark Nelson as
Chairman of the Planning Commission. Charlotte Bass seconded the motion.
Motion carried 6/0.

Lynn Heath made a motion to nominate Quentin Coon as
Vice-Chairman of the Planning Commission. Charlotte Bass seconded the motion.
Motion carried 6/0.

Ron Roberts made a motion to nominate Jan Cox as
Secretary of the Planning Commission. Charlotte Bass seconded the motion.
Motion carried 6/0.

Clark Nelson welcomed Caroline
Hale as the new Andover City Council Liaison to the Planning Commission.

There was discussion about
election of officers for the Subdivision Committee. The Planning Commission
deferred the issue until the full board is present.

Election of Planning
Commission Officers.

SU-2005-01: Public Hearing on an application for Special Use to
establish a Tae Kwan Do Training School in the B-2 Neighborhood Business
District located at 1027 N. Andover Road.

Les
Mangus said this application arises out of the style of our Zoning
Regulations which are permissively written. Les explained the other uses
allowed in the B-2 district. He said the applicant is wanting to open this
business in a tenant space in an existing strip center.

David
Perreault of 14021 W. Lockmoor Circle in Wichita and applicant presented his
special use request. He explained that he and his wife will be the
instructors for the school. The tenant space is approximately a 1,200 square
foot space.

Clark
Nelson asked David Perreault if he already owns a school. David said this is
a new start up school after previously owning and operating 2 schools in Okinawa, Japan which were very successful.

Clark
Nelson asked Les Mangus if he approved of this application. Les said he does
recommend approval subject to required parking to match the change of use.
There is existing adequate parking for the tenant spaces, but if there is any
change in the future, the parking requirement will have to be reviewed for
compliance.

There
was discussion about this special use because it applies to the entire
property, not just the 1,200 square foot tenant space. Les explained the 2
existing professional offices only use minimal parking spaces compared to the
Tae Kwan Do School which requires more.

David
Perreault said the only time the school would require additional parking is
on Saturdays when testing is done. There is additional parking space
available at the rear of the property at the old church. These classes will
normally be held in the evenings when the other 2 tenants are closed.

Lynn Heath asked about hours of operation because B-2
zoning only allows businesses be open until 11:00 p.m. David Perreault said
he and his wife plan to be home by 8:30 p.m.

Ron
Roberts asked about the maximum number of students expected. David Perreault
said he can only fit 25 to 30 students in the space. He said if the class
size grows beyond that number, they will open more class times. Ron said his
concern was about the quantity of vehicles traveling in and out of this
parking lot. David said it would be proportionate to the number of students
enrolled.

Charlotte
Bass asked if the noise from this class would be a nuisance to the neighbors.
David Perreault said there is some music and yelling in the class, but not
enough to bother the neighborhood, and it won’t be happening while the other
tenants are open.

Hearing
no further comment from the public, Chairman Nelson declared the Public
Hearing closed and began to review the 17 factors and findings.

SU-2005-01: Tae Kwan Do Training School

1027 N. Andover Road

ANDOVER CITY PLANNING COMMISSION

Agenda Item No. 7

REZONING
REPORT *

CASE NUMBER:

SU-2005-01

APPLICANT/AGENT:

David Perreault/ Jim
Stoffle

REQUEST:

Special Use to establish a
Tae Kwan Do Training School in the B-2 Neighborhood Business District.

CASE HISTORY:

Existing Office Businesses
in strip center

LOCATION:

1027 N. Andover Road

SITE SIZE:

1.2 acres

PROPOSED USE:

Tae Kwan Do Training
School

ADJACENT
ZONING AND EXISTING LAND USE:

North:

R-2 Single-Family Residence

South:

R-1 Legal non-conforming
multi-family residences

East:

B-6 Andover Industrial Park
vacant land

West:

R-2 Single-Family Residence

Background Information:

* Note: This report is to
assist the Planning Commission to determine their findings from the
evidence presented at the hearing so as to base their rezoning
recommendation on the required 17 factors found in Section 11-100 H of the Zoning
Regulations. The responses provided need to be evaluated with the evidence
and reworded as necessary to reflect the Planning Commission’s considered
opinion. Sample motions are provided to ensure the accuracy of the motion
and facilitate the summary of the hearing for the minutes. Conditions
attached to the motion, if any, should be carefully worded to provide
instructions to the applicant and facilitate enforcement by the Zoning
Administrator.

(As per Article 11, Section
100 of the City of Andover Zoning Regulation – 1993)

H.

Amendments to Change Zoning
Districts. When a proposed amendment would result in a change of the zoning
district classification of any specific property, the report of the
Planning Commission, accompanied by a summary of the hearing, shall contain
statements as to (1) the present and proposed district classifications, (2)
the applicant’s reasons for seeking such reclassification, and (3) a
statement of the factors where relevant upon which the recommendation of
the Commission is based using the following factors as guidelines:

FACTORS AND
FINDINGS:

YES

NO

1.What is the character of the subject property
and in the surrounding neighborhood in relation to existing uses and their
condition?

STAFF:

Vacant Industrial Park land to the east and residences
on the other 3 sides.

PLANNING:

Concur with Staff.

COUNCIL:

YES

NO

2.What is the current zoning of the subject
property and that of the surrounding neighborhood in relation to the
requested zoning change?

STAFF:

R-1, R-2, B-6

PLANNING:

Concur with Staff.

COUNCIL:

YES

NO

3.Is the length of time that the subject
property has remained undeveloped or vacant as zoned a factor in the
consideration?

x

STAFF:

x

PLANNING:

COUNCIL:

YES

NO

4.Would the request correct an error in the
application of these regulations?

x

STAFF:

x

PLANNING:

COUNCIL:

YES

NO

5.Is the request caused by changed or changing conditions in the area
of the subject property and, if so, what is the nature and significance of
such changed or changing conditions?

x

STAFF:

x

PLANNING:

COUNCIL:

YES

NO

6.Do adequate sewage disposal and water supply
and all other necessary public facilities including street access exist or
can they be provided to serve the uses that would be permitted on the
subject property?

x

STAFF:

All are in place and adequate.

x

PLANNING:

Concur with Staff.

COUNCIL:

YES

NO

7.Would the subject property need to be platted
or replatted in lieu of dedications made for rights-of-way, easements
access control or building setback lines?

x

STAFF:

x

PLANNING:

COUNCIL:

YES

NO

8.Would a screening plan be necessary for
existing and/or potential uses of the subject property?

x

STAFF:

x

PLANNING:

COUNCIL:

YES

NO

9.Is suitable vacant land or buildings
available or not available for development that currently has the same
zoning as is requested?

STAFF:

N.A.

PLANNING:

N.A.

COUNCIL:

YES

NO

10.If the request is for
business or industrial uses, are such uses needed to provide more services
or employment opportunities?

X

STAFF:

Provides a new service.

X

PLANNING:

Concur with Staff.

COUNCIL:

YES

NO

11.Is the subject property
suitable for the uses in the current zoning to which it has been
restricted?

x

STAFF:

x

PLANNING:

COUNCIL:

YES

NO

12.To what extent would
removal of the restrictions, i.e., the approval of the zoning request
detrimentally affect other property in the neighborhood?

x

STAFF:

No detriment to the public is perceived.

x

PLANNING:

Concur with Staff.

COUNCIL:

YES

NO

13.Would the request be
consistent with the purpose of the zoning district classification and the
intent and purpose of these regulations?

x

STAFF:

x

PLANNING:

COUNCIL:

YES

NO

14.Is the request in
conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and does it further enhance the
implementation of the Plan?

x

STAFF:

Limited businesses along Andover Road.

x

PLANNING:

COUNCIL:

YES

NO

15.What is the support or
opposition to the request?

STAFF:

None at this time.

PLANNING:

None at this time.

COUNCIL:

YES

NO

16.Is there any information
or are there recommendations on this request available from knowledgeable
persons which would be helpful in its evaluation?

x

STAFF:

Approval as applied for.

x

PLANNING:

Concur with Staff.

COUNCIL:

YES

NO

17.If the request was not
approved, would this result in a relative gain to the public health, safety
and general welfare which would outweigh the loss in property value to or
the hardship experienced by, the applicant?

x

STAFF:

x

PLANNING:

COUNCIL:

Lynn Heath asked if this special use applied to the
entire block and both buildings or is it only for this tenant space. Les
Mangus said the application covers the entire property from Andover Road to Main Street & Mike Street ½ block south. Les said the expansion of the
Tae Kwan Do school is self-limiting because taking over additional tenant
space would require a building permit and review of the parking space
requirements. The only change would be the signage on the door.

Having considered the evidence at the hearing and
the factors to evaluate the special use application, I Quentin Coon, move
that we recommend to the Governing Body that Case No. SU-2005-01 be approved
to change the zoning district classification to allow the Special Use to
establish a Tae Kwan Do Training School in the B-2 Neighborhood Business
District based on the findings 10, 11, and 13 of the Planning Commission as
recorded in the summary of this hearing. Motion seconded by Jan Cox. Motion
carried 6/0.

Les
Mangus stated this will be heard by the City Council on June 14, 2005 for
final approval.

Z-2005-03: Public hearing on the proposed amendments to the
Decker/Kiser Preliminary Planned Unit Development Plan, located at the
Northwest corner of Andover Road & 21st Street.

Clark
Nelson said the next agenda item will be consideration of a smaller portion
of this PUD with an amendment to the Final Plat.

Clark said this applicant wants to simplify the parcels
of land by combining the lots with the same zoning because this development
has the potential of 1,000 dwelling units at completion. Clark said the
Subdivision Committee has reviewed this amendment and was unable to agree on
certain points. Clark asked Les to explain the application.

Les
said this is a difficult case to follow the history. The original PUD was
formed in 2000, an amendment was requested to convert some business and
multi-family residential lots into single-family residential parcels, an
amendment to allow medical uses and a hospital on 2 parcels, and tonight to
combine all the residential parcels in the east 200 acres into 1 parcel. This
will simplify the task of density computations. He said the other request is
to vary the lots sizes within the residential parcel 4 with a minimum lot
size of 8,500 square feet vs. the existing 10,000 square feet. Other issues
of concern are the widths of streets and right-of-ways, and collector street
layout.

Jason
Gish of MKEC Engineering represented
the owner/ developer in this case and began to review staff comments. Jason
submitted additional documents to the Commission and to adjacent homeowners
in the audience.

Review
of comments:

1.Correct General Provision #2 (6
access openings onto Parcels 1, 2, & 3) – Jason said this will be
corrected to show there will be 8 openings.

2.Correct permitted use text for
Parcels 5, 6, & 7. Jason said that will be taken care of. Brian Lindebak
from MKEC said the developer is in agreement with staff comments.

3.Provide preliminary drainage
plan. Jason said this has been submitted. Clark Nelson said a copy of the
drainage plan was delivered to the Commissioners on Monday evening.

4.Provide preliminary sidewalk
location plan. Jason said that has been submitted.

5.Provide traffic calming methods
for long uninterrupted streets. Jason said there are entry points off of
arterial streets, 1 at Andover Road and 1 on 21st Street. He said
in-between those 2 points he has proposed a 60’ right-of –way with a 29’ back
to back street. There are no lots along this street with direct driveway
access and there would be no parking allowed along this street. He feels this
would be an acceptable traffic calming design.

There
was general discussion about traffic calming concepts, effectiveness, cost to
the developer, and effect on the neighborhood.

Jason
Gish said that on the eastern and
northern area of Parcel 4, the developer proposes a mixture of lot sizes.
Jason said only 3% of the lots in this subdivision will be below the 10,000
square foot minimum lot size. 97% of the lots are larger than 10,000 square
feet. Clark Nelson explained that if this application is approved as
requested, would permit 8,500 square foot lots in every single lot on the
application. Clark would prefer some limitation would be placed on the total
number of small lots allowed. There was continued discussion.

Les
said that on Parcel 4, the text of the General Provisions states the maximum
total number of lots allowed is 340. He said 300 lots at 8,500 square feet
would create 50% open space which would not be profitable for the developer.
The plan as it is shown is 311 lots. Lynn Heath said he is comfortable with
the protection provided in the General Provisions and does not think an
amount or percentage of small lots is necessary. Les said the average lot
size shown is 13,989 square feet and even if it varied by 10% the lots would
still be over 12,000+ square feet. Les said the objective of the developer is
to offer a variety of lot sizes to the consumers. Les suggested having the
Planning Commission designate a minimum average lot size.

Clark
Nelson asked if anyone had a concern about the sidewalk locations. Ron Roberts said the 8’ sidewalk on the northwest quadrant needs to be on the north side of the
street instead of the south to avoid pedestrians having to cross a collector
street.

Les
said Parcel #14 is zoned R-3 Multi-Family & allows 2, 3, & 4 family
dwellings and is limited to a maximum of 78 dwelling units.

Clark
Nelson said the drainage plan needs to be discussed and asked Jason if this
property will drain from the northwest to the southeast. Jason said there is
a ridge line on the north which directs the north 25% of the property
drainage from that point to the north. Property south of that ridge line will
drain to the southeast. Jason said there are several large detention ponds
designed to catch the water from the residential area as well as controlling
the impact from the commercial area. Jason said box structures will be used
as drainage control.

Quentin
Coon asked what happens with the water
running to the south. Jason said the water will be released into the
structure that crosses under Andover Road. Les said that during the review of
this drainage plan with the City Engineer, the plan was found to be
incomplete. He said areas of concern are: 1. the area north of 21st Street at the half-mile line with an area of drainage routed to the
southwest and states the flow would be reduced, but no method was documented.
2. What happens with the water if a 100-year storm is exceeded? 3. Capacity
of existing box culvert at 21st and Andover Road. Les said this
drainage report uses the FAA method of calculation of impervious area and he
suggested they use SCS Lag method to calculate the amount of developed area.
This created a +/-20% difference. Jason said they design overcompensation for
drainage in other areas where a pond cannot be built. Jason further explained
that on the Final PUD, minimum pad elevations on the homes are 3 feet above
the 100-year storm level, and surface escape routes are built so that if the
box culvert fails the water will spread out across streets and lawns before
it goes into homeowner’s basements or front doors. Jason said FEMA only
requires a 1-foot minimum pad elevation. Les said he wants all of that
information documented in the final drainage report.

Les
Mangus explained that the low opening if it is in a flood plain is the
basement floor. The houses in this PUD won’t be in a flood plain, so the low
opening is the view-out window, or walk out pit or surface.

Clark asked Jason about the letter of map revision
(LOMR). Jason said modeling proof will have to be done for FEMA to have the
existing flood plain map changed.

Quentin
Coon was concerned where all the water
would run off to from all the proposed parking lots in the commercial areas.
Les Mangus said they have over compensated in the residential areas so that
the sum total when it gets to the discharge area at 21st Street
& Andover Road does not exceed today’s conditions.

Lynn
Heath said some parking lots are designed to hold water in the major storms.

Charlotte
Bass asked who will monitor these drainage plans in the future to assure the
community the designs are working. Jason said the Final drainage plan is the
only instrument to document the design. Les said no one will be documenting
the rate of flow, but the engineers must certify that the grade was built to
the level it was shown on the plan. Clark Nelson said if these checks and
balances are not done during construction, the issue will need to be worked
out in a court of law.

Ron
Roberts asked whose responsibility it
is to maintain the culverts to assure they are not covered in weeds and
debris. Les said that after January 1, 2006, the City of Andover will be
required to comply with the Clean Water Act. City employees will be
inspecting all the structures for pollution, maintenance, blockages, and etc.
The home owners associations own the reserves where the lakes are and they
are responsible for maintaining the grass growing along the banks. If the
HOA’s fail to do their job, the city can step in and mow the grass and assess
the work back to the record property owner’s property tax. Les said these
ponds are retention/ detention areas. All the city cares about is that the
detention ponds slow the water down.

Neeley
Stotler of 2342 N. Andover Road said his property is already being flooded
during heavy rains and he feels the development of this property would cause
him further harm. He showed 2001 -2005 photos to the Planning Commission of
previous water damage to his property and of the debris that is the result of
the flooding. He said the culvert by the college is full of sediment and
weeds. He said he has complained to the City about the property running behind
Countryside Pet Clinic and he said nothing has been done. He said this
development will create more problems for the neighboring properties to the
south. Mr. Stotler said his property is receiving drainage from both the
field north of his as well as flowing from the west to the east from this
Decker/Kiser property. He said he has a berm on the north side of his
property.

Clark
Nelson asked Mr. Stotler if he had a proposed solution. He said the City of Andover has failed for 8 years to control the problem beginning with the college culverts
not being engineered properly. He said the water is backing up the hill. Mr.
Stotler said the current level of drainage onto his property is unacceptable.
Clark asked if he sees any problems with the engineer’s design for this
Cornerstone Addition.

Jeff
Bridges suggested Mr. Stotler contact the Butler County Engineer as this
property is not within the Andover City limits and not city jurisdiction. Mr.
Stotler said he has already done so.

Neeley
Stotler said the surrounding property owners were not notified about this
hearing. Clark Nelson asked Les Mangus if the appropriate notices were sent
out. Mr. Stotler said he has received some notices from the city that have
been addressed to a previous owner. Les said the list of owners to be
notified were provided by Kansas Secured Title who receive their information
from the Butler County Register of Deeds. Les said he needs to contact the
county to assure the information in their system is correct for all future
correspondence. Mr. Stotler said he has a neighbor who would not have known
about this hearing if he would not have told him. Clark Nelson said if
property is being purchased on contract from the record property owner, all
legal correspondence concerning the property must be sent to them, not the
contractual buyer. Clark Nelson said the proper notifications about this
hearing were sent and legal procedures were followed by the city. Les said
the county shows the record property owner to be Robert B. Simpson for 2342 N. Andover Road. Lynn Heath said Robert Simpson lives north of Mr. Stotler and that Rod
Buckley lives to his south at 2332 N. Andover Road. Les the law states that
it is the applicant’s responsibility to obtain this ownership list for this
reason, so the liability for this list is in the applicant’s hands, not the
city’s. Les Mangus said he is glad Mr. Buckley is here tonight and that he
did receive word of the Public Hearing. Clark Nelson said the Planning
Commission would do it’s best to address the issues of Mr. Stotler. Les said
there is an error in the record but by Mr. Buckley attending the meeting
tonight, the problem has just corrected itself. American Housing Trust is the
record property owner of 2332 N. Andover Road where Mr. Buckley lives.

Rod
Buckley of 2332 N. Andover Road said the drainage problem around the college
needs to be fixed first before any further water is routed this direction. He
said his property also floods during heavy rains. He said he is not qualified
to decide if the design of the proposed drainage plan will be adequate to
control flooding.

Clark
Nelson said he appreciated both Mr. Buckley and Mr. Stotler’s comments. Clark asked Jason Gish to address the concern of these 2 gentlemen. Jason said he did
not believe any drainage from the Cornerstone Addition would exacerbate the
problems of these 2 homeowners with respect to the drainage. He said he could
not design anything to improve the conditions of the complainants without
added expense and liability to the developer. Jason said the evidence
presented shows the drainage problems of the Buckley and Stotler properties
are the result of existing issues on the east side of Andover Road. Mr.
Stotler insisted the drainage is running across Andover Road from the west to
the east.

Clark
Nelson asked for the County Engineer and City Engineer to be consulted to
help remedy the situation of the complainants. Les said he has communicated
with Engineers and Mr. Stotler and has shown the problem is not the boxes at Andover Road or 21st Street. He said the water would have to be over 10’ deep on 21st Street to back up onto Mr. Stotler’s property and that has never happened.
Les said the culverts on Mr. Stotler’s property are not large enough to
accommodate the amount of water coming off the properties to the north. There
continued to be disagreement between Mr. Stotler and staff about where the
drainage problem is created. Clark Nelson said Mr. Stotler’s concerns have
been made known to Planning Commission and Staff and he hopes something can
happen in the future to relieve the issues of the Stotler’s. Clark Nelson
stated the discussion will now be restricted to the bench.

Ron
Roberts said he is still concerned
about the long cul-de-sacs over 500’ long,

Z-2005-03: Public hearing on the proposed
amendments to the Decker/Kiser Preliminary Planned Unit Development Plan,
located at the Northwest corner of Andover Road & 21st Street

* Note: This report is to
assist the Planning Commission to determine their findings from the
evidence presented at the hearing so as to base their rezoning
recommendation on the required 17 factors found in Section 11-100 H of the
Zoning Regulations. The responses provided need to be evaluated with the
evidence and reworded as necessary to reflect the Planning Commission’s
considered opinion. Sample motions are provided to ensure the accuracy of
the motion and facilitate the summary of the hearing for the minutes.
Conditions attached to the motion, if any, should be carefully worded to
provide instructions to the applicant and facilitate enforcement by the
Zoning Administrator.

(As per Article 11, Section
100 of the City of Andover Zoning Regulation – 1993)

H.

Amendments to Change Zoning Districts. When a proposed
amendment would result in a change of the zoning district classification of
any specific property, the report of the Planning Commission, accompanied
by a summary of the hearing, shall contain statements as to (1) the present
and proposed district classifications, (2) the applicant’s reasons for
seeking such reclassification, and (3) a statement of the factors where
relevant upon which the recommendation of the Commission is based using the
following factors as guidelines:

FACTORS AND
FINDINGS:

YES

NO

1.What is the character of the subject property
and in the surrounding neighborhood in relation to existing uses and their
condition?

2.What is the current zoning of the subject
property and that of the surrounding neighborhood in relation to the
requested zoning change?

STAFF:

R-4 & R-2, Butler Co. Agriculture, - B-2 &
B-3, & R-3

PLANNING:

Concur with Staff.

COUNCIL:

YES

NO

3.Is the length of time that the subject
property has remained undeveloped or vacant as zoned a factor in the
consideration?

x

STAFF:

x

PLANNING:

COUNCIL:

YES

NO

4.Would the request correct an error in the
application of these regulations?

x

STAFF:

x

PLANNING:

COUNCIL:

YES

NO

5.Is the request caused by changed or changing
conditions in the area of the subject property and, if so, what is the
nature and significance of such changed or changing conditions?

x

STAFF:

x

PLANNING:

Quentin Coon said he thinks this application is the
result of changing market conditions. Les said the original 2000 PUD
proposed 1,006 dwelling units. The amended application tonight is for 1,012
dwelling units only changing by 6.

COUNCIL:

YES

NO

6.Do adequate sewage disposal and water supply
and all other necessary public facilities including street access exist or
can they be provided to serve the uses that would be permitted on the
subject property?

x

STAFF:

All could be extended to serve the needs.

x

PLANNING:

Concur with Staff.

COUNCIL:

YES

NO

7.Would the subject property need to be platted
or replatted in lieu of dedications made for rights-of-way, easements
access control or building setback lines?

x

STAFF:

Cornerstone 1st Addition is currently
submitted for review & approval.

x

PLANNING:

Concur with Staff.

COUNCIL:

YES

NO

8.Would a screening plan be necessary for
existing and/or potential uses of the subject property?

x

STAFF:

The application is for Single-Family residences only.

x

PLANNING:

Concur with Staff.

COUNCIL:

YES

NO

9.Is suitable vacant land or buildings
available or not available for development that currently has the same
zoning as is requested?

x

STAFF:

Approximately 40 similar lots are available in the
last phase of Caywood- +/- 8 months demand.

x

PLANNING:

Concur with Staff.

COUNCIL:

YES

NO

10.If the request is for
business or industrial uses, are such uses needed to provide more services
or employment opportunities?

STAFF:

N.A.

PLANNING:

N.A.

COUNCIL:

YES

NO

11.Is the subject property
suitable for the uses in the current zoning to which it has been
restricted?

x

STAFF:

x

PLANNING:

COUNCIL:

YES

NO

12.To what extent would
removal of the restrictions, i.e., the approval of the zoning request
detrimentally affect other property in the neighborhood?

x

STAFF:

Increased traffic on the street system.

x

PLANNING:

Additional drainage. Les stated the standard is met.
Clark Nelson said there were complaints heard tonight about drainage, but
there is no proof their problem results from the applicant’s property.

COUNCIL:

YES

NO

13.Would the request be
consistent with the purpose of the zoning district classification and the
intent and purpose of these regulations?

x

STAFF:

x

PLANNING:

COUNCIL:

YES

NO

14.Is the request in conformance
with the Comprehensive Plan and does it further enhance the implementation
of the Plan?

x

STAFF:

Provides a variety of lot sizes & amenities.

x

PLANNING:

Concur with staff.

COUNCIL:

YES

NO

15.What is the support or
opposition to the request?

x

STAFF:

None at this time.

PLANNING:

2 in opposition present at Public Hearing with
drainage concerns.

COUNCIL:

YES

NO

16.Is there any information
or are there recommendations on this request available from knowledgeable
persons which would be helpful in its evaluation?

x

STAFF:

Approval with appropriate traffic calming measures to
be implemented in the Final PUD plans.

x

PLANNING:

Lynn Heath asked for more traffic calming methods to
be designed for the collector street just north of the multi-family
property.

Jan Cox objected to the long cul-de-sacs. She
disagreed with PUD standards to be different from the general standards.
Les said this PUD was approved in 2000 and the general provisions cannot be
altered now. She asked for the Planning Commission to change the General
Provisions of the PUD and require 31’ of paving and a 60’ right of way,
specifically on the cul-de-sacs that are over 500 feet long.

Jason Gish said to maintain the efficiency of the
design considering drainage and etc., he would lose density of the project
and increase the cost of paving the streets which would increase the
assessed special taxes to the buyers, making the property harder to sell.

Jan Cox said she would not object to the longer
cul-de-sacs if the developer would agree to make the streets wider. Jason
said he would be happy to redesign the long cul-de-sacks to have wider
streets. Les said he is comfortable with the 58’ street because of the
number of houses that abut it.

Les said the trade off in this PUD would be in
following the strict standard regulations, the average lot size would be
10,000 square feet, where as in this PUD, the average lot size is 13,989
square feet some of which go over 20,000 square feet. Les tried to explain
to the Commission the advantages of give and take in PUD developments.

Clark Nelson asked the Planning Commission to decide
if this concept as presented improves the City of Andover in a fair and
reasonable way. Clark said he supports the approval of Cornerstone as it stands.

COUNCIL:

YES

NO

17.If the request was not
approved, would this result in a relative gain to the public health, safety
and general welfare which would outweigh the loss in property value to or
the hardship experienced by, the applicant?

x

STAFF:

x

PLANNING:

COUNCIL:

Having considered the evidence at the hearing and
the factors to evaluate the rezoning application, I Lynn Heath, move that
we recommend to the Governing Body that Case No. Z-2005-03 be modified
& approved to consolidate residential parcels 4, 14, 15, 16, & 17
AND to reduce the minimum lot size to 8,500 sq. ft. for the consolidated
Parcel 4 based on the findings 9, 13, and 14 of the Planning Commission as
recorded in the summary of this hearing and that the following conditions
be attached to this recommendation:

In the NW/C of Parcel 4, to move the sidewalk
to the north side of the street.

Ron
Roberts made a motion to recess
the meeting at 9:25 p.m. for a 5 minute break. Quentin Coon seconded the
motion. Motion carried 6/0.

Recess

Chairman
Clark Nelson called the Planning Commission meeting back to order at 9:30
p.m.

Chairman
Nelson restated the final vote on the amendment to the Decker/Kiser PUD. He
said Ron Roberts and Jan Cox voted in opposition.

Review
the Revised Cornerstone First Addition Final Planned Unit Development Plan
located at the northwest corner of Andover road & 21st Street.
Jason Gish from MKEC represented the owner/ developer. Jason showed the map
of the proposed Phase 1. He explained Phase 1 is a separated area at the
developer’s request for marketing reasons.

Jason
Gish explained his plan to downsize
the collector street just to the north of the multi-family parcel making the
street width 29’ back to back to limit the speed along this street. There was
discussion about narrowing streets as a method of traffic calming.

Clark
Nelson asked Jason if he has addressed all of the staff comments. Jason went
through them with the Commission.

üMinimum lot sizes and average density issues have
been addressed earlier in this meeting.

üJason said the boundary of the flood plain will be
shown within reserves B & C on sheet 2 of the PUD. Les said this will be
noted as a drainage easement.

üJason said he will show the Andover Road & 21st Street right-of-ways existing & new on the final plat.

üJan Cox said the Planning Commission Chair is Clark
Nelson, not Quentin Coon and needs to be changed on the plat.

üJason said he will show the right-of-way connection
to 21st Street and Andover Roads. Les said this is about the text
of the Final PUD saying that access to 21st Street and Andover Road will be specifically limited to 1 each from this final platted area.

Lynn
Heath asked about detention/retention of the southwest corner of this final
plat being west of the final platted area and north of 21st Street
but it is not shown on the plat. Jason said intermediate means of water
control will be provided during the construction of Phase 1. Les agreed with Lynn that every phase as it comes on line needs to have plans for drainage to not create
further problems for existing areas.

Quentin
Coon asked if the landscape buffer
shown on the south edge of Phase 1 will be built with this phase. Jason said
that will be done with the commercial area construction.

üJason said he would provide minimum pad elevations
where indicated along the drainage easement.

Lynn
Heath asked for more information about traffic calming methods. Jason Gish said these developments are designed for reasonable people to control their speeds
through the residential neighborhoods.

Jeff
Bridges said the City Council is interested in traffic calming also.

Clark
Nelson was concerned about approving a Final Plat subject to such a large
number of conditions. Jeff Bridges said the City Council would also like to
see the corrected Final Plat as approved by the Planning Commission. Les
Mangus said the roll of the Planning Commission is to approve of this plat,
and the City Council’s only job is to accept/reject the dedications on that
plat. Les said the City Council cannot hear the amendments to the Preliminary
PUD until June 14, 2005 to allow for the 2 week petition period.

Clark
Nelson asked the developer if he objected to bringing the Planning Commission
a corrected plan before going to City Council. Jason said he will answer all
of Planning Commission’s concerns tonight and have them corrected on the
final plat for City Council approval on June 14th and that the
developer does not want to wait any longer before beginning construction.

Jason
said he does not want any medians built on arterial streets because they get
run into. He said it is more effective to downsize the streets instead. Les
said the proposal is to downsize the right-of-way and make it a no parking
area along both sides of the street. Lynn Heath proposed additional cross
walks.

Les
said some sort of agreement could be met with the developer regarding these
areas of concern before the Final Plat reaches the City Council. Les is
concerned that his perception of acceptable solution is different than that
of the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission said they would be clear
about their concerns and Les could take direction from the minutes of this
meeting. Chairman Nelson said so far they would like to see:

ØIntermediate drainage control for the southerly
portion of Phase 1.

ØAccess control into the text of the plat.

ØWidth of the access into the residential collector
streets

ØSidewalk locations.

ØTraffic calming locations & methods.

ØAdd the Andover Road access into the text.

Clark
Nelson said the concerns of the Planning Commission are minor design issues
that are better served by staff.

Jan
Cox asked that in the area the collector street is to be squeezed down as a
traffic calming method, if only the paving be narrowed and to leave the
right-of-way alone. Les and Jason said they have no objections to this
method. Jan said this is for future development in the event the street would
need to be widened. Ron Roberts said this would provide for additional
landscaping area for the calming effect along the roadway. There was
discussion about utility easement and right-of-way.

Les
Mangus said the additional right-of –way could be designated a reserve strip.
Jason said this will be an unfair expense to the developer and eventually the
homeowner. Jason said the reserve areas are built into the front end of the
phase for aesthetic reasons.

Jason
said the centerline of the street would remain as it is shown and the
additional right-of-way would be added on both sides of the streets to the
affected property owners.

Hearing
no further public comment, Clark Nelson brought the discussion back to the
bench.

Lynn
Heath made a motion to approve the Final Plat for Cornerstone First Addition
Phase 1, located at the northwest corner of 21st Street and Andover Road with the following conditions:

1.Intermediate drainage
control of the west side of the south section of Phase 1

2.Satisfaction of all of
staff comments as shown on pgs. 4 and 5 of the checklist for the Final Plat

3.Width of street
right-of-way for the residential collector streets

4.Additional traffic
calming methods implemented

5.Have a narrower pavement
width but allowing the right-of-way to remain the same.

Charlotte
Bass seconded the motion. During
discussion, Les said a utility conference could be called for this project to
assign all the utilities their space for construction.

Review
the Final Planned Unit Development Plan of the Cornerstone Medical Addition
located on the North side of 21st Street East of 159th Street. Rob Hartman of Professional Engineering Consultants represented the
applicant on this project. He said this is the Final Plat for the hospital
site and is a portion of Parcels 5 and 6 of the Cornerstone Preliminary PUD.
He said this Lot 1 will be the hospital site and is about 12 acres in size. Lot 2 is for the future medical office buildings. He said all staff issues have been
addressed from the checklist. He said the street name of Cornerstone Parkway
would be renamed to Keystone Parkway to avoid confusion with the residential
street name. He said 3 access points are noted on Keystone Parkway, and
access control on 21st Street, 1 opening to lot 1 and will line up
with Quail Crossing Street to the south, so the opening will be limited to
100’ width, 147’ of complete access control on the west edge of lot 1, 1
opening proposed for the medical office building and will be on lot 2. He
said the parcel descriptions have been clarified. He said the developer will
petition for the Keystone collector street, sanitary sewer, water that will
extend from 21st Street to the north edge of the plat, left turn
and deceleration lane on 21st Street as well as a storm water
drain detention pond that will be on an easement just east of Keystone
Parkway.

Rob
Hartman said there was an issue at the
Subdivision Committee meeting about the street width on 21st
Street with the turning lane to expand to 60’ of right-of-way. Rob said the
owner objected to the landscaping plan and a compromise is a 20’ sidewalk
easement in lieu of the 10’ of street dedication which will allow the 10’
sidewalk and the proposed 5 lane street on 21st.

Rob
Hartman said SBC had requested an
easement between lots 1 & 2. Rob has contacted SBC and explained the
medical office building would be connected to the hospital, SBC agreed to
retract the original request.

Les
Mangus said Subdivision Committee was concerned about cross-lot circulation
between these 2 lots and the 1 to the west. Les asked about the covenants
that were mentioned to address this. Rob said the plan is to put all the
commercial properties in a common maintenance, access, coordination covenant
that permits cross-lot drainage, access, and maintenance of all common areas.
He said this will be submitted before the plat is filed. Rob Hartman offered to add text to the Final Plat General Provisions “that there will be
cross-lot circulation”. Les agreed with this.

Lynn
Heath was concerned about this drainage plan working in coordination with
that of the residential plat. Rob Hartman said there will be a detention pond
built on the east edge of the medical center site that will take care of all
the drainage of the development.

Quentin
Coon asked why a reserve area is not
shown east of Keystone Parkway on the plan for construction of the pond. Les
said this could be taken care of by separate instrument. Rob said they will
dedicate a drainage easement and then during the final platting of that site
they will show the reserve at that time.

Quentin
continued to be concerned about drainage ponds not being shown on the Final
Plat. Les said they are described in the drainage plan and are shown on the
site plan. Les said the detention pond that does not show on this concept is
going to belong in its entirety to the hospital site and will be their sole
responsibility to maintain it. Rob said that even if the drainage ponds on
the north side of the medical center plat were never built, the one on the
southeast side would be adequate to handle it. Les said he is comfortable
with the presentation of required information by Rob Hartman.

There
was discussion about the left turn and deceleration lanes on 21st.
Rob said the north side of the road will have to be widened and re-striped by
10’ to accommodate these special lanes. Les said that when improvements are
designed for 21st Street, the needs will be considered for this
development only compared to today to decide if any changes are necessary at
all. The developer will have petitions in the developer’s agreement that will
bind him to the cost of the left turn lane and the deceleration lanes. Les
said the long term plan for 21st is to have it be 5 lanes with a
turning lane in the center. Les does not think that with the hospital site
traffic alone those improvements would be warranted.

Lynn
Heath made a motion to approve the Final Plat for Cornerstone Medical
Addition with the following conditions:

oIdentify a reserve to the east of Keystone Parkway for the water retention.

Ron
Roberts seconded the motion.
Motion carried 6/0.

Final Planned Unit
Development Plan of the Cornerstone Medical Addition

Review the Final Planned Unit Development Plan of Flint
Hills National Addition Phase 5. Jason Gish of MKEC represented the applicant
and provided a background of this development and a color site plan to the
members.

Jason said he is proposing a street name for the south
cul-de-sac of Blue Sage and Goldenrod Court would be changed to Quail Ridge Court.

Les said corrections need to be made on the plat for
Clark Nelson as Chairman and correct Phase 4 to Phase 5. Lynn Heath pointed
out the errors on the Certificate of Survey, Owners Certificate, & on the
Planning Commission Certificate & Mortgage Holder.

Les said he has received the final drainage plan and he
has a few comments about it. They are about the methodology and missing
information.

Les said he has received a copy of the restrictive
covenants.

Les explained the need for the correction of the title
to say this is replatting of a portion of Lot 1 Block 3 of the Flint Hills
National Golf Course.

There was discussion about the north end of the plat
showing the existing gate and drive for 20’ permanent emergency access
control easement. Jason asked for permission to close the temporary emergency
access control from Phase 4 as soon as these changes are built in Phase 5.
They want to use it longer as a construction entrance. Les said this was
shown on the Preliminary PUD.

Lynn Heath made a motion to approve the Final PUD
Phase 5 for Flint Hills National Addition with the conditions of satisfaction
of staff comments & the approval of street name of Quail Ridge Court.
Charlotte Bass seconded the motion. Motion carried 6/0.

Review the Final Planned Unit Development Plan of Flint
Hills National Addition Phase 5.

Quentin Coon made a motion to recess the
Planning Commission at 10:57 p.m. and to convene the Board of Zoning
Appeals. Lynn Heath seconded the motion. Motion carried 6/0.

BZA-V-2005-02: Public Hearing on an application
for variance of 8 square feet from the required 72 square foot maximum
limitation, the limitation of one entry monument per phase of development,
and the maximum height of ten feet to allow construction of 2 entry monument
signs (one each side of entrance) with a total sign surface area of 80 square
feet, and a sign structure height of 13 feet on property zoned as the R-2 Single-Family
Residential District located at the intersection of Harry Street & Logan
Pass.

Jason Gish of MKEC representing the developer said this
sign is for the Montana Hills Addition. Jason said that even though these
signs are not in conformance with the regulations, he feels they will have no
negative impact on the city. He explained the landscaping around the trees
and admitted the signs are already 50% constructed already.

Les said for an entry monument, 2 square feet per lot of
signage is allowed. The first phase of this subdivision is for 36 lots. The
maximum size for an entry monument sign is 100 square feet and would have to
have 50 lots in the first phase. The rules allow only 1 sign per phase.

Clark Nelson clarified this request for variance is for
the total square feet of each sign, the total number of signs, and the height
of the signs.

BZA-V-2005-02:

F.

The Board shall not grant a variance unless it shall, in
each case, make specific written findings of fact directly based upon the
particular evidence presented to it which support all the conclusions as
required by K.S.A. 12-715 as listed below:

True/ Yes

False/ No

1.

The variance requested arises
from such condition which is unique to the property in question and which
is not ordinarily found in the same zoning district, and is not created by
an action or actions of the property owners or the applicant;

Quentin Coon and Jan Cox said
this condition is created by the owners or applicants. Les said the
regulations would normally allow you to build a 100 square foot sign. He
said the regulations overlap, creating confusion. Lynn Heath said this
arises from a condition created by the regulations of the city to restrict
the signage. There was further discussion about previous change in city
regulations. Lynn Heath said the spirit of the regulations was to have
applicants come before the Planning Commission for exceptions.

Chairman Nelson asked for a
show of hands to vote yes or no on this question. Yes- 4 / No-2 with Quentin Coon and Jan Cox in opposition.

X

2.

The granting of the variance
will not adversely affect the rights of adjacent property owners or
residents;

X

3.

The strict application of the
provisions of these regulations from which a variance is requested will
constitute unnecessary hardship upon the property owner represented in the
application.

X

4.

The variance desired will not
adversely affect the public health, safety, morals, order, convenience,
prosperity, or general welfare; and

X

5.

Granting the variance desired
will not be opposed to the general spirit and intent of these regulations.

X

G.

In determining whether the
evidence supports the conclusions required by Section 1-107(D)(1), the
Board shall consider the extent to which the evidence demonstrates that:

1.

The particular physical
surroundings, shape, or topographical condition of the specific property
involved would result in a practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship
upon or for the owner, lessee, or occupant, as distinguished from a mere
inconvenience, if the provisions of these regulations were literally
enforced.

Lynn Heath said these signs
blend in well with the environment.

X

2.

The request for a variance is
not based exclusively upon a desire of the owner, lessee, occupant or
applicant to make more money out of the property.

Clark Nelson said he does not
believe the request is based exclusively upon a desire to make money.

X

3.

The granting of the variance
will not be materially detrimental or injurious to other property or
improvements in the neighborhood in which the subject property is located,
and

X

4.

The proposed variance will
not impair an adequate supply of light or air to adjacent property,
substantially increase the congestion in the public streets, increase the
danger of fire, endanger the public safety, or substantially diminish or
impair property values within the neighborhood.

X

Having considered the
evidence at the hearing and determined the findings of facts have been
found to exist that support the five conditions set out in Section 10-107D1
of the Zoning Regulations and K.S.A. 12-759(e) of the state statutes which
are necessary for granting of a variance, I Ron Roberts move that the
Chairperson be authorized to sign a resolution granting the variance for
Case No. BZA-V-2005-02 as requested to vary the sign provisions of section
7-102 and 7-104 to allow an 8’ increase from the allowed 72 square foot
total to 80 square foot total sign area, to allow for 2 entry monuments
instead of 1, and to allow for a 15’ maximum sign height instead of 10’. Lynn
Heath seconded the motion. Motion carried4/2 with Jan Cox and Quentin Coon in opposition.

Lynn
Heath made a motion to adjourn the Board of Zoning Appeals at 11:00 p.m. and
to reconvene the Planning Commission meeting. Ron Roberts seconded the
motion. Motion carried 6/0.

Annual
review of the Comprehensive Development Plan.

Quentin
Coon made a motion to table
this issue until the next meeting. Charlotte Bass seconded the motion. Motion
carried 6/0.

Annual review of the Comp. Development Plan.

Member
Items:

Ron
Roberts asked Les about the
language in item number 1 of the variance report being a stumbling block to
the committee. Jan Cox said it asks the question of “action on behalf of the
applicant”. Les said the only way to avoid this is to take no action.

Jeff Bridges stated the
long range transportation plan is being updated for the Metropolitan Planning
Organization and KDOT is not accepting Prairie Creek Road as a major arterial
street due to a gap south of Central. They are designating this portion south
of Central a “collector street” in their long range plan. He asked if the
Planning Commission had a problem with that. Jeff said it is not a monetary
issue for the city. Les said it is a definition difference of arterial and
collector streets between the city and the feds. Les said Andover can
continue to show Prairie Creek Road in our comprehensive plans as a future
arterial street.

Member Items

Jan
Cox made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 11:18 p.m. Quentin Coon seconded
the motion. Motion carried 6/0.

Adjournment

Respectfully
Submitted by

__________________________

Deborah Carroll

Administrative
Secretary

Approved this 21st day
of June 2005 by the Andover City Planning Commission/ Board of Zoning
Appeals, City of Andover.